Citizen Housing (202118721)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118721

Citizen Housing

10 June 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of sewage leaks, and her request for compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She lives in a block of similar properties.
  2. On 30 June 2021 the resident reported an uncontainable leak of sewage water coming from the property above. The landlord attended that day, and decanted her for two nights until it carried out a hygiene clean. There was another leak on 12 August 2021. The landlord offered to decant the resident whilst it carried out work (plastering). It is understood that she chose to stay with family.
  3. The resident made a compensation claim to the landlord in July 2021 for damage to her belongings as a result of the leak. The landlord dealt with her claim as a formal complaint. The landlord said it would not compensate her as it had not been negligent in terms of the repair work, and had not caused the leak. It suggested she make a claim on her contents insurance.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to be rehoused. In the landlord’s final complaint response (October 2021), it noted upon review, there were gaps in its original response as it could have explained more clearly that the cause of the blockage in the soil pipe could not have been foreseen by it. It noted there was no evidence that there had been poor maintenance on its part and the drain survey indicated that there were items blocking the waste pipe and soil stack which caused water to back up and leaks to occur. It noted that in its initial response it had agreed to write to residents and remind them not to place items that could cause a blockage down the toilets, however it had not done so in a timely manner. It offered the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused from this but reiterated that the leak was not due to anything it did, it had acted in accordance with its policy and offered alternative accommodation whilst it rectified the issue. It confirmed it would not rehouse her as her property was habitable, and this was not an outcome it could reach as a direct result of the situation.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service she set out that the whole situation had negatively impacted her mental and physical health. She also said the landlord removed two mattresses from her property, but claimed it only removed one. She reiterated that she wanted to move home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained how the leaks have impacted her health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on a resident’s health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Such matters would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or insurance. These bodies can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident has also advised this Service that the landlord denied removing two mattresses from her property when it attended following the first leak. No evidence has been provided to show the resident raised this concern as part of her formal complaint which exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in October 2021. Therefore, in line with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme these issues will not be considered in this investigation. This is because the landlord needs an opportunity to investigate matters before the Ombudsman becomes involved. Should the resident want to pursue this she should raise the matter with the landlord first. Whilst the Ombudsman would usually advise approaching this Service should the resident remain dissatisfied, given the passage of time to which the incident relates, it may be the case that the Ombudsman cannot consider the matter further.

Handling of leaks and compensation request

  1. The landlord’s website explains that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It considers uncontainable leaks as emergencies. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it can offer compensation when there has been an unreasonable inconvenience or delay. It says residents are responsible for taking out home contents insurance. The landlord’s compensation procedure explains that when residents make claims against it, it will only uphold the claim if the inconvenience or loss suffered was caused directly by the landlord’s action or inaction. It will compensate residents for damaged belongings if the damage was a direct result of the landlord’s negligent action or inaction. It will offer a maximum of £200 compensation in light of any inconvenience caused.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (issued on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards between £50 and £250 for cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as delays in responding to a complaint) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  3. The resident reported an uncontainable leak on 30 June 2021. The landlord attended that day and decanted the resident. When the resident reported a second leak on 12 August 2021, the landlord again attended within 24 hours. The landlord attended promptly on both occasions, and in line with the timeframes set out in its policy. It then took steps to carry out repairs and restore the property to the condition it was in before the leaks occurred.
  4. The resident made a claim to the landlord for damages incurred as a result of the leak. The landlord rejected her claim, and advised her to instead make a claim on her contents insurance. The landlord explained that it had not found any evidence to show it had caused the leak, or been negligent in terms of the subsequent repair work. Its decision not to uphold her claim was therefore reasonable as it was in line with its compensation policy (as explained above), and it provided a detailed explanation. Also, contents insurance is suitable in situations when nobody has been at fault for any damage, and as residents are responsible for taking such cover out, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost her to it.
  5. The resident told the landlord that she wanted to move properties as a result of the situation. The landlord explained that it would not consider this as an outcome to her complaint as her property was habitable. This was not an unreasonable response from the landlord. This is because there are no reasonable grounds on which a landlord would be expected to permanently move a resident if there were no apparent issues with their property. Although it is understandable that the situation would have been distressing for the resident, the landlord took steps to alleviate the nuisance by decanting her, and carrying out remedial repairs. Therefore, if the resident wanted to move, she would be expected to go through the normal bidding process, as advised by the landlord. Given the circumstances. it would be unfair on other residents potentially at a higher priority to be bypassed in order to offer the resident an immediate move.
  6. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it said there had been gaps in its original response. It said it should have explained that the leak was unforeseen, and that its contractors had found no evidence to show there had been any poor maintenance on its behalf. It explained that the cause noting it should have done so sooner. It also reasonably advised of the work it had completed to the soil pipe, and that the most current report showed there were no further issues.
  7. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused of there being gaps in its initial response. The landlord’s offer was more than reasonable. This is because it exceeded what this Service would normally deem suitable in such situations (as explained above) as there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord’s failure to address certain matters in its stage one complaint response would have had a significant or long-term impact on the resident as the leaks had been resolved and it adequately addressed all issues in its stage two response.
  8. Ultimately, the landlord attended promptly in response to the resident’s reports of leaks. It offered alternative temporary accommodation. It then took reasonable steps to restore the property to its previous condition. Its reasoning for not compensating the resident for her damaged belongings was reasonable, as it was in accordance with its compensation policy and general good practice. Also, it reasoning for not rehousing the resident was also reasonable, given that priority moves are often only offered in cases where there is no alternative solution.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £200 previously offered if it has not done so already as this was the basis of our finding of reasonable redress.